IN SEARCH OF AN OPTIMAL
MIX OF EFFECTIVE PRACTICES
Thomas R. Guskey
University of Kentucky
Introduction
Research
on Professional Development
The Search For
An Optimal Mix
Guidelines
for Success
Guideline #1:
Recognize Change as Both an Individual and Organizational
Process
Guideline #2:
Think Big, but Start Small
Guideline #3:
Work in Teams to Maintain Support
Guideline #4:
Include Procedures for Feedback on Results
Guideline #5:
Provide Follow-Up, Support, and Pressure
Guideline #6:
Integrate Programs
Conclusion
References
Never before in the history of education has there been
greater recognition of the importance of professional development. Every modern
proposal to reform, restructure, or transform schools emphasizes professional
development as a primary vehicle in efforts to bring about needed change. With
this increased recognition, however, has come increased scrutiny. Questions are
being raised about the effectiveness of all forms of professional development in
education. And with these questions have come increased demands for demonstrable
results. Legislators, policy makers, funding agencies, and the general public
all want to know if professional development programs really make a difference.
If they do, what evidence is there to show they are effective?
To address these questions professional developers are taking on new roles
and new responsibilities. They recognize that professional development must
include organizational development as well as individual development. They also
see that professional development must be job embedded as well as programmatic,
and must be not only for teachers but for everyone who affects student learning.
In addition, professional developers are becoming more serious about the issues
of program evaluation, especially the importance of gathering information on the
outcomes of all forms of professional development. And the information they
gather is also no longer limited to surveys of teachers' attitudes and
practices. Since the goal of most modern professional development efforts is
improved performance by the organization, staff, and ultimately students
(Sparks, 1994), information on crucial measures of student learning increasingly
is being considered (Guskey & Sparks, 1991).
But perhaps more importantly, professional developers are also looking more
seriously at the research on professional development in education. They are
examining what is known about the various forms of professional development, not
only for teachers but for all those involved in the educational process. They
also are considering what is known about various organizational characteristics
and structures, especially those that facilitate ongoing professional growth.
In this article we will consider what that research says about the
effectiveness of professional development. In particular we will consider the
mixed messages reformers are getting from this research and how we might make
sense of those messages. We then turn to a series of guidelines for professional
development, drawn principally from the research on individual and
organizational change. Finally, we turn our attention to the potential impact of
implementing these guidelines.
The research base on professional development in education is quite
extensive. For the most part, however, this research has documented the
inadequacies of professional development and, occasionally, proposed solutions
(Epstein, Lockard, & Dauber, 1988; Griffin, 1983; Guskey, 1986; Joyce &
Showers, 1988; Lieberman & Miller, 1979; Orlich, 1989; Wood & Thompson,
1980, 1993). Still, reformers attempting to make sense of these various
solutions quickly find themselves faced with seemingly incompatible dichotomies.
For instance:
The problem in trying to identify the critical elements of successful
professional development is that most efforts focus on a search for "one right
answer." They begin by gathering evidence from a variety of studies,
investigations, and program evaluations. This evidence is then synthesized to
distinguish those characteristics that consistently relate to some measure of
effectiveness. The modern technique used by many researchers to conduct such
syntheses is called "meta-analysis" (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). This technique
allows the researcher to standardize and then average the effect sizes across
studies. In most cases, effectiveness is judged by an index of participants'
satisfaction with the program or some indication of change in their professional
knowledge. Rarely is change in professional practice considered, and rarer still
is any assessment of impact on student learning (Guskey & Sparks, 1991).
What typically results are prescriptions of general practices that are described
in broad and nebulous terms. Sadly, these prescriptions offer little guidance to
practically minded reformers who want to know precisely what to do and how to do
it.
What is neglected in nearly all of these efforts is the powerful impact of
context. In fact, synthesizing the evidence across studies is done
specifically to eliminate the effects of context, or to decontextualize the
data. Yet as Clark, Lotto, and Astuto (1984); Firestone and Corbett (1987);
Fullan (1985); Huberman and Miles (1984); and others suggest, the uniqueness of
the individual setting will always be a critical factor in education. What works
in one situation may not work in another . Although some general principles may
apply throughout, most will need to be adapted, at least in part, to the unique
characteristics of that setting.
Businesses and industries operating in different parts of the country or in
different regions around the world may successfully utilize identical processes
to produce the same quality product. But reforms based upon assumptions of
uniformity in the educational system repeatedly fail (Elmore & McLaughlin,
1988). The teaching and learning process is a complex endeavor that is embedded
in contexts that are highly diverse. This combination of complexity and
diversity makes it difficult, if not impossible, for researchers to come up with
universal truths (Guskey, 1993; Huberman, 1983, 1985).
We know with certainty that reforms in education today succeed to the degree
that they adapt to and capitalize on this variability. In other words, they must
be shaped and integrated in ways that best suit regional, organizational, and
individual contexts: the local values, norms, policies, structures, resources,
and processes (Griffin & Barnes, 1984; McLaughlin, 1990; Talbert,
McLaughlin, & Rowan, 1993).
Recognizing the importance of contextual differences compels professional
developers to consider more seriously the dynamics of systemic change and the
power of systems. Contexts involve organizations which must develop along with
the individuals within them.
In addition, recognizing the importance of contextual differences brings
clarity to the nature of the dichotomies described earlier. That is, successful
change efforts in some contexts require professional development that focuses on
practitioner specific activities (Porter, 1986; Wise, 1991), while other
contexts demand a more systemic or organizational approach (Sarason, 1990). In
some contexts teacher initiated efforts work best (Weatherley & Lipsky,
1977), while in others a more administratively directed approach may be needed
(Mann, 1986). And while some contexts demand that professional development take
a gradual approach to change (Sparks, 1983), others require immediate and
drastic alterations at all levels of the organization (McLaughlin, 1990).
Acknowledging the powerful influence of context also shows the futility of
the search for "one right answer." Because of the enormous variability in
educational contexts, there will never be "one right answer." Instead, there
will be a collection of answers, each specific to a context. Our search must
focus, therefore, on finding the optimal mix -- that assortment of
professional development processes and technologies that will work best in a
particular setting.
It is also important to recognize that the optimal mix for a particular
setting changes over time. Contexts, like the people who shape them, are
dynamic. They change and adapt in response to a variety of influences. Some of
these influences may be self-initiated while others are environmentally imposed.
Because of this dynamic nature, the optimal mix for a particular context evolves
over time, changing as various aspects of the context change. What works today
may be quite different from what worked five years ago, but it also is likely to
be different from what will work five years hence.
Because of the powerful and dynamic influence of context, it
is impossible to make precise statements about the elements of effective
professional development. Even programs that share a common vision and seek to
attain comparable goals may need to follow very different pathways to succeed.
The best that can be offered are procedural guidelines that appear to
be critical to the professional development process. These guidelines are
derived from research on professional development specifically and the change
process generally (Crandall et al., 1982; Fullan, 1991; Guskey, 1986; Huberman
& Miles, 1984; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992; McLaughlin,
1990). Rather than representing strict requirements, however, these guidelines
reflect a framework for developing that optimal mix of professional development
processes and technologies that will work best in a specific context at a
particular point in time.
In reviewing these guidelines it is important to keep in mind that at present
we know far more about professional development processes that fail than we do
about those that succeed (Gall & Renchler, 1985; Showers, Joyce, &
Bennett, 1987). There is no guarantee, therefore, that following these
guidelines will always bring success. Still, substantial evidence indicates that
neglecting the issues described in these guidelines at best will limit success
and, at worst, will result in programs and activities that fail to bring about
significant or enduring change.
An important lesson learned from the past is that we cannot improve schools
without improving the skills and abilities of the professional educators within
them. In other words, we must see change as an individual process and
be willing to invest in the intellectual capital of those individuals who staff
our schools (Wise, 1991). Success in any improvement effort always hinges on the
smallest unit of the organization and, in education, that is the classroom
(McLaughlin, 1991). School principals and teachers are the ones chiefly
responsible for implementing change. Therefore professional development
processes, regardless of their form (Sparks & Loucks-Horsley, 1989), must be
relevant to principals and teachers, and must directly address their specific
needs and concerns (Hall & Loucks, 1978; Weatherley & Lipsky, 1977).
At the same time, to see change as only an individual process
can make professional development an arduous and uncomfortable personal
endeavor. Even changes that are empowering bring a certain amount of anxiety.
And principals and teachers, like professionals in many fields, are reluctant to
adopt new practices or procedures unless they feel sure they can make them work
(Lortie, 1975). To change or to try something new means to risk failure, and
that is both highly embarrassing and threatening to one's sense of professional
pride (Pejouhy, 1990).
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that organizations, like
individuals, also adopt change (Sarason, 1982; Shroyer, 1990; Waugh & Punch,
1987). To focus exclusively on individuals in professional development efforts,
while neglecting factors such as organizational features and system politics,
severely limits the likelihood of success (Berman, 1978; Clift, Holland, &
Veal, 1990; Deal, 1987; Fullan & Pomfret, 1977; Parker, 1980). A
debilitating environment can squash any change effort, no matter how much we
exhort individuals to persist (Beane, 1991).
To focus on change as only an organizational matter, however, is
equally ineffective. Fiddling with the organizational structure is a favorite
device of educational policy makers and administrators because it communicates
to the public in a symbolic way that they are concerned with the performance of
the system. But as Elmore (1992) argues, evidence is scant that such structural
change leads in any reliable way to changes in how teachers teach, what they
teach, or how students learn. McLaughlin (1990) describes this as the difference
between macro-level concerns and micro-level realities. To facilitate change we
must look beyond policy structures and consider the embedded structure that most
directly affects the actions and choices of the individuals involved.
The key is to find the optimal mix of individual and organizational
processes that will contribute to success in a particular context. In some
situations, individual initiative and motivation might be quite high, but
organizational structures stand in the way of significant improvement. Teachers
may wish to plan collaboratively, for example, but find it impossible to do so
because of the inordinate time demands of their teaching schedules. In other
situations, progressive and supportive organizational structures may be in
place, but the lack of personal incentives for collaboration and experimentation
inhibits any meaningful change in classroom practice. Viewing change as both an
individual and organizational process that must be adapted to
contextual characteristics will help clarify the steps necessary for success in
professional development.
There is no easier way to sabotage change efforts than to take on too much at
one time. In fact, if there is one truism in the vast research literature on
change it is that the magnitude of change persons are asked to make is inversely
related to their likelihood of making it (Guskey, 1991). Professionals at all
levels generally oppose radical alterations to their present procedures. Hence
the probability of their implementing a new program or innovation depends
largely on their judgment of the magnitude of change required for implementation
(Doyle & Ponder, 1977; Fullan, 1982; Mann, 1978).
Successful professional development programs are those that approach change
in a gradual and incremental fashion. Efforts are made to illustrate how the new
practices can be implemented in ways that are not too disruptive or require a
great deal of extra work (Sparks, 1983). If a new program does require major
changes be made, it is best to ease into its use rather than expect
comprehensive implementation at once (Fullan, 1985).
But while the changes advocated in a professional development effort must not
be so ambitious that they require too much too soon from the implementation
system, they need to be sufficient in scope to challenge professionals and
kindle interest (McLaughlin, 1990). Crandall, Eisemann, and Louis (1986) argue
that the greatest success is likely when the size of the change is not so
massive that typical users find it necessary to adopt a coping strategy that
seriously distorts the change, but large enough to require noticeable, sustained
effort. Modest, narrowly conceived projects seldom bring about significant
improvement. This is what is meant by "think big."
The key, again, is to find the optimal mix. Professional development efforts
should be designed with long term goals based on a grand vision of what is
possible. A program might seek to have all students become successful
learners, for example. At the same time, that vision should be accompanied by a
strategic plan that includes specific incremental goals for three to five years
into the future, gradually expanding on what is successful in that context and
offering support to those engaged in the change (Fullan, 1992; Louis &
Miles, 1990).
The discomfort that accompanies change is greatly compounded if the
individuals involved perceive they have no say in the process or if they feel
isolated and detached in their implementation efforts. For this reason it is
imperative that all aspects of professional development be fashioned to involve
teams of individuals working together. This means that planning, implementation,
and follow-up activities should all be seen as joint efforts, providing
opportunities for those with diverse interests and responsibilities to offer
their input and advice (Massarella, 1980).
To insure that the teams function well and garner broad-based support for
professional development efforts, it is important they involve individuals from
all levels of the organization. In school improvement programs, for example, the
best professional development teams include teachers, non-instructional staff
members, building and central office administrators (Caldwell & Wood, 1988).
In some contexts the involvement of parents and community members also can be
helpful (Lezotte, 1989). Although the roles and responsibilities of these
individuals in the professional development process will be different, all have
valuable insights and expertise to offer.
Still, the notion of teamwork must be balanced. There is evidence to show,
for instance, that large-scale participation during the early stages of a change
effort is sometimes counterproductive (Huberman & Miles, 1984). Elaborate
needs assessments, endless committee and task force debates, and long and
tedious planning sessions often create confusion and alienation in the absence
of any action. Extensive planning can also exhaust the energy needed for
implementation, so that by the time change is to be enacted, people are burned
out (Fullan, 1991). Furthermore, broad-based participation in many decisions is
not always essential or possible on a large scale (Dawson, 1981; Hood &
Blackwell, 1980). As Little (1989) argues, there is nothing particularly
virtuous about teamwork or collaboration per se. It can serve to block change or
inhibit progress just as easily as it can serve to enhance the process.
To facilitate change, teamwork must be linked to established norms of
continuous improvement and experimentation, and these norms then guide
professional development efforts. In other words, there must be a balance of
teamwork and collaboration with the expectation that all involved in the process
-- teachers, administrators, and non-instructional staff members -- are
constantly seeking and assessing potentially better practices (Little, 1989).
Such a balance promotes collegial interaction and acknowledges the naturally
occurring relationships among professionals.
The most successful professional development efforts, for example, are those
that provide regular opportunities for participants to share perspectives and
seek solutions to common problems in an atmosphere of collegiality and
professional respect (Fullan, Bennett, & Rolheiser-Bennett, 1989; Little,
1982). Working in teams also allows tasks and responsibilities to be shared.
This not only reduces the workload of individual team members, it also enhances
the quality of the work produced. Additionally, working in teams helps focus
attention on the shared purposes and improvement goals that are the basis of the
professional development process in that context (Leithwood & Montgomery,
1982; Rosenholtz, 1987; Stevenson, 1987).
If the use of new practices is to be sustained and changes
are to endure, the individuals involved need to receive regular feedback on the
effects of their efforts. It is well known that successful actions are
reinforcing and likely to be repeated while those that are unsuccessful tend to
be diminished. Similarly, practices that are new and unfamiliar will be accepted
and retained when they are perceived as increasing one's competence and
effectiveness. This is especially true of teachers, whose primary psychic
rewards come from feeling certain about their capacity to affect student growth
and development (Bredeson, Fruth, Kasten, 1983; Guskey, 1989; Huberman, 1992).
New practices are likely to be abandoned, however, in the absence of any
evidence of their positive effects. Hence specific procedures to provide
feedback on results are essential to the success of any professional development
effort.
Personal feedback on results can be provided in a variety of ways, depending
on the context. In professional development programs involving the
implementation of mastery learning (Bloom, 1968, 1971), for example, teachers
receive this feedback from their students through regular formative assessments
(Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, 1981). In mastery learning classrooms, formative
assessments are used to provide students with detailed feedback on their
learning progress and to diagnose learning problems. As such, they can take many
forms, including writing samples, skill demonstrations, projects, reports,
performance tasks, or other, more objective assessment devices such as quizzes
or tests. These assessments are then paired with corrective activities designed
to help students remedy any learning errors identified through the assessment.
But in addition to the feedback they offer students, formative assessments
also offer teachers specific feedback on the effectiveness of their application
of mastery learning. These regular checks on student learning provide teachers
with direct evidence of the results of their teaching efforts. They illustrate
what improvements have been made and where problems still exist. This
information then can be used to guide revisions in the instructional process so
that even greater gains are achieved (Guskey, 1985).
Of course, results from assessments of student learning are not the only type
of personal feedback that teachers find meaningful. Brophy and Good (1974)
discovered that providing feedback to teachers about their differential
treatment of students resulted in significant change in their interactions with
students. Information on increased rates of student engagement during class
sessions and evidence of improvements in students' sense of confidence or
self-worth also have been shown to be powerful in reinforcing the use of new
instructional practices (Dolan, 1980; Stallings, 1980). Information from
informal assessments of student learning and moment-to-moment responses during
instruction can provide a basis for teachers to judge the effectiveness of
alternative techniques as well (Fiedler, 1975; Green, 1983; Smylie, 1988).
Yet despite its importance, procedures for gathering feedback on results must
be balanced with other concerns. The methods used to obtain feedback, for
example, must not be disruptive of instructional procedures. Furthermore, they
should not require inordinate amounts of time or extra work from those engaged
in the difficult process of implementation. Timing issues are also critical, for
it is unfair to expect too much too soon from those involved in implementation.
As Loucks-Horsley, Harding, Arbuckle, Murray, Dubea, and Williams (1987) point
out, this is analogous to pulling a plant out of the ground each day to check
its roots for growth. In other words, there must be a balance, or optimal mix,
in which the need for feedback is adapted to the characteristics of the program
and the setting. Feedback procedures must focus on outcomes that are meaningful
to the professionals involved, but also timed to best suit program needs and the
constraints of the context.
Few persons can move from a professional development
experience directly into implementation with success. In fact, few will even
venture into the uncertainty of implementation unless there is an appreciation
of the difficulties that are a natural part of the process (Fullan & Miles,
1992). There also must be a threshold level of "readiness" for the change.
Fitting new practices and techniques to unique on-the-job conditions is an
uneven process that requires time and extra effort, especially when beginning
(Berman & McLaughlin, 1978; Joyce and Showers, 1980). Guidance, direction,
and support with pressure are crucial when these adaptations are being made
(Baldridge & Deal, 1975; Fullan, 1991; Parker, 1980; Waugh & Punch,
1987).
What makes the early stages of implementation so complicated is that the
problems encountered at this time are often multiple, pervasive, and
unanticipated. Miles and Louis (1990) point out that developing the capacity to
deal with these problems promptly, actively, and in some depth may be "the
single biggest determinant of program success" (p. 60). And regardless of how
much advanced planning or preparation takes place in an effort to establish
readiness, it is when professionals actually implement the new ideas or
practices that they have the most specific problems and doubts (Berman, 1978;
Fullan & Pomfret, 1977).
Support coupled with pressure at this time are vital for continuation.
Support allows those engaged in the difficult process of implementation to
tolerate the anxiety of occasional failures. Pressure is often necessary to
initiate change among those whose self-impetus for change is not great
(Airasian, 1987; Huberman & Crandall, 1983). In addition, it provides the
encouragement, motivation, and occasional nudging that many practitioners
require to persist in the challenging tasks that are intrinsic to all change
efforts.
Of all aspects of professional development, this is perhaps the most
neglected. It makes clear that to be successful, professional development must
be seen as a process, not an event (Loucks-Horsley, et al. 1987). Learning to be
proficient at something new or finding meaning in a new way of doing things is
difficult and sometimes painful. Furthermore, any change that holds great
promise for increasing individuals' competence or enhancing an organization's
effectiveness is likely to be slow and require extra work (Huberman & Miles,
1984). It is imperative, therefore, that improvement be seen as a continuous and
ongoing endeavor (McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978).
If a new program or innovation is to be implemented well, it must become a
natural part of practitioners' repertoire of professional skills and built into
the normal structures and practices of the organization (Fullan & Miles,
1992; Miles & Louis, 1987). For advances to be made and professional
improvements to continue, the new practices and techniques that were the focus
of the professional development effort must become used almost out of habit. And
for this to occur, continued support and encouragement, paired with subtle
pressure to persist, are essential.
This crucial support with pressure can be offered in a variety of ways.
McLaughlin and Marsh (1978) recommend that local resource personnel or
consultants be available to provide on-line assistance when difficulties arise.
They emphasize, however, that the quality of the assistance is critical, and
that it is better to offer no assistance than poor or inappropriate assistance.
Joyce and Showers (1988), suggest that support for change take the form of
coaching -- providing practitioners with technical feedback, guiding them in
adapting the new practices to their unique contextual conditions, helping them
to analyze the effects of their efforts, and urging them to continue despite
minor setbacks. In other words, coaching is personal, practical, on-the-job
assistance, that can be provided by consultants, administrators, directors,
peers, or other professional colleagues. Simply offering opportunities for
practitioners to interact and share ideas with each other also can be valuable
(Massarella, 1980; McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978).
Here again, the notion of balance is critical. In some contexts a substantial
amount of pressure from leaders may be necessary to overcome inertia,
recalcitrance, or outright resistance (Mann, 1986). It is possible, for example,
when making decisions about instructional practices to overemphasize teachers'
personal preferences and underemphasize concern about student learning
(Buchmann, 1986). Yet in contexts where there is considerable individual
initiative, such pressure may be seen as a strong-armed tactic and
unprofessional (Leiter & Cooper, 1978). The key is to find the optimal mix
for that context, understanding well the interpersonal dynamics of the
individuals involved and the culture of the organization in which they work.
More so than any other profession, education seems fraught
with innovation. In fact, innovations seem to come and go in education about as
regularly as the seasons change. Each year new programs are introduced in
schools without any effort to show how they relate to the ones that came before
or those that may come afterward. Furthermore, there is seldom any mention of
how these various innovations contribute to a growing professional knowledge
base. The result is an enormous overload of fragmented, uncoordinated, and
ephemeral attempts at change (Fullan & Miles, 1992).
The steady stream of innovations in education causes many practitioners to
view all new programs as isolated fads that will soon be gone, only to be
replaced by yet another bandwagon (Latham, 1988). This pattern of constant yet
unrelated, short-term innovations not only obscures improvement and provokes
cynicism, it also imposes a sense of affliction. Having seen a multitude of
innovations come into and go out of fashion, veteran teachers frequently calm
the fears of their less experienced colleagues who express concern about
implementing a new program with the advice, "Don't worry; this, too, shall
pass."
If professional development efforts that focus on the implementation of new
innovations are to succeed, they must include precise descriptions of how these
innovations can be integrated. That is, each new innovations must be presented
as part of a coherent framework for improvement. It is difficult enough for
practitioners to learn the particular features of one innovation, let alone to
figure out how it can be combined with others. And because no single innovation
is totally comprehensive, implementing only one will leave many problems
unresolved. It is only when several strategies are carefully and systematically
integrated that substantial improvements become possible. Doyle (1992), Sarason
(1990), and others also emphasize that coordinating programs and combining ideas
releases great energy in the improvement process.
In recent years several insightful researchers have described how different
combinations of innovations can yield impressive results (e.g. Arredondo &
Block, 1990; Davidson & O'Leary, 1990; Guskey, 1988, 1990a; Mevarech, 1985;
Weber, 1990). In addition, several frameworks for integrating a collection of
programs or innovations have been developed that practitioners are finding
especially useful. One example is a framework developed by Marzano, Pickering,
and Brandt (1990) based on various dimensions of learning. Another developed by
Guskey (1990b) is built around five major components in the teaching and
learning process. These frameworks allow skilled practitioners to see more
clearly the linkages among various innovations. They also offer guidance to the
efforts of seriously minded reformers seeking to pull together programs that
collectively address the problems that are most pressing in a particular
context.
A crucial point here is that the particular collection of programs or
innovations that is best undoubtedly will vary from setting to setting. As a
result, the way linkages are established and applications integrated will need
to vary as well. Fullan (1992) stresses that, "schools are not in the business
of managing single innovations; they are in the business of contending with
multiple innovations simultaneously" (p. 19). By recognizing the dimensions
of learning a particular innovation stresses or the components of the teaching
and learning process it emphasizes, savvy educators can pull together
innovations that collectively address what is most needed in that context at a
particular point in time.
The ideas presented in these procedural guidelines are not
new and certainly cannot be considered revolutionary. They may, in fact, appear
obvious to those with extensive experience in professional development
processes. Yet as self-evident as they may seem, it is rare to find a
professional development effort today that is designed and implemented with
thorough attention to these guidelines or the factors that underlie them. It is
rarer still to find professional development endeavors that evaluate the
implementation of these guidelines in terms of effects on student learning.
What is evident from these guidelines is that the key to greater success in
professional development rests not so much in the discovery of new knowledge,
but in our capacity to use deliberately and wisely the knowledge we have. This
is true regardless of whether professional development is viewed as an integral
part of one's career cycle, as a self-directed journey to find meaning and
appreciation in one's work, or as a structured effort to keep professionals
abreast of advances in their field. To develop this capacity requires a clear
vision of our goals and a thorough understanding of the process by which those
goals can be attained.
In the minds of many today there is a clear vision of what would be ideal in
professional development. That ideal sees educators at all levels constantly in
search of new and better ways to address the diverse learning needs of their
students. It sees schools as learning communities where teachers and students
are continually engaged in inquiry and stimulating discourse. It sees
practitioners in education respected for their professional knowledge and
pedagogic skill. The exact process by which that vision can be accomplished,
however, is much more blurred and confused. The reason, as argued here, is that
the process is so highly contextualized. There is no "one right answer" or "one
best way." Rather, there are a multitude of ways, all adapted to the complex and
dynamic characteristics of specific contexts. Success, therefore, rests in
finding the optimal mix of process elements and technologies that then can be
carefully, sensibly, and thoughtfully applied in a particular setting.
While it is true that the ideas presented here offer an optimistic
perspective on the potential of professional development in education, these
ideas are not far-fetched. They illustrate that although the process of change
is difficult and complex, we are beginning to understand how to facilitate that
process through pragmatic adaptations to specific contexts so that ongoing
professional growth and improved professional practice are ensured. Doing so is
essential to improved learning for all students.
References
Airasian, P. W. (1987). State mandated testing and educational reform:
Context and consequences. American Journal of Education, 95, 393-412.
Arredondo, D. E., & Block, J. H. (1990). Recognizing the connections
between thinking skills and mastery learning. Educational Leadership,
47(5), 4-10.
Baldridge, J. V., & Deal, T. (1975). Managing change in educational
organizations. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Barth, R. S. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and
principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123-128.
Beane, J. A. (1991). Sorting out the self-esteem controversy. Educational
Leadership, 49(1), 25-30.
Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro- and micro-implementation. Public
Policy, 26(2), 157-184.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1978). Federal programs supporting
educational change. Vol. VIII: Implementing and sustaining innovations.
Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2),
1-12.
Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery
learning: Theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). Evaluation to
improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bredeson, P. V., Fruth, M. J., & Kasten, K. L. (1983). Organizational
incentives and secondary school teaching. Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 16, 24-42.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships:
Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Buchmann, M. (1986). Role over person: Morality and authenticity in teaching.
Teachers College Record, 87, 529-543.
Burden, P. R. (Ed.). (1990). Teacher induction [entire issue]. Journal of
Staff Development, 11(4).
Caldwell, S., & Wood, F. (1988). School-based improvement -- Are we
ready? Educational Leadership, 46(2), 50-53.
Clark, D., Lotto, S., & Astuto, T. (1984). Effective schools and school
improvement: A comparative analysis of two lines of inquiry. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 41-68.
Clift, R. T., Holland, P. E., & Veal, M. L. (1990). School context
dimensions that affect staff development. Journal of Staff Development,
11(1), 34-38.
Clune, W. H. (1991). Systemic educational policy. Madison, WI:
Wisconsin Center for Educational Policy, University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Crandall, D. P., Loucks-Horsley, S., Bauchner, J. E., Schmidt, W. B.,
Eiseman, J. W., Cox, P. L., Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., Taylor, B. L.,
Goldberg, J. A., Shive, G., Thompson, C. L., & Taylor, J. A. (1982).
People, policies, and practices: Examining the chain of school
improvement. Andover, MA: The NETWORK, Inc.
Crandall, D., Eiseman, J., & Louis, K. (1986). Strategic planning issues
that bear on the success of school improvement efforts. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 21-53.
Davidson, N., & O'Leary, P. W. (1990). How cooperative learning can
enhance mastery teaching. Educational Leadership, 47(5), 30-34.
Dawson, J. (1981). Teacher participation in educational innovation: Some
insights into its nature. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
Deal, T. (1987). The culture of schools. In L. Sheive & M. Schoeheit
(Eds.), Leadership: Examining the elusive (pp. 3-15). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Dolan, L. J. (1980). The affective correlates of home support,
instructional quality, and achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago.
Doyle, D. P. (1992). The challenge, the opportunity. Phi Delta Kappan,
73(7), 512-520.
Doyle, W. & Ponder, G. (1977). The practical ethic and teacher
decision-making. Interchange, 8(3), 1-12.
Elmore, R. F. (1992). Why restructuring alone won't improve teaching.
Educational Leadership, 49(7), 44-48.
Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy,
practice, and reform in American education (R-3574-NIE/RC). Santa Monica,
CA: Rand Corporation.
Epstein, J. L., Lockard, B. L., & Dauber, S. L. (1988). Staff
development policies needed in the middle grades. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Fiedler, M. (1975). Bidirectionality of influence in classroom interaction.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 735-744.
Firestone, W., & Corbett, H. D. (1987). Planned organizational change. In
N. Boyand (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration
(pp. 321-340). New York: Longman.
Floden, R. E., & Clark, C. M. (1988). Preparing teachers for uncertainty.
Teachers College Record, 89, 505-524.
Fullan, M. G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1985). Change processes and strategies at the local level.
Elementary School Journal, 85, 391-421.
Fullan, M. G. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional
development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school culture through staff
development: 1990 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (pp. 3-25). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. G. (1992). Visions that blind. Educational Leadership,
49(5), 19-20.
Fullan, M. G., Bennett, B., & Rolheiser-Bennett, C. (1989). Linking
classroom and school improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works
and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 745-752.
Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction
implementation. Review of Educational Research, 27(2), 355-397.
Gall, M. D., & Renchler, R. S. (1985). Effective staff development
for teachers: A research-based model. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Educational Management, University of Oregon.
Green, J. (1983). Research on teaching as a linguistic process: A state of
the art. In E. Gordon (Ed.), Review of research in education
(Vol. 10, pp. 151-252.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Griffin, G. A. (Ed.) (1983). Staff development. Eighty-second yearbook of
the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Griffin, G. A., & Barnes, S. (1984). School change: A craft-derived and
research-based strategy. Teachers College Record, 86, 103-123.
Guskey, T. R. (1985). Implementing mastery learning. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.
Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (1988). Mastery learning and mastery teaching: How they
complement each other. Principal, 68(1), 6-8.
Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13(4), 439-453.
Guskey, T. R. (1990a). Cooperative mastery learning strategies.
Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 33-42.
Guskey, T. R. (1990b). Integrating innovations. Educational Leadership,
47(5), 11-15.
Guskey, T. R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development
programs. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3),
239-247.
Guskey, T. R. (1992, November). What does it mean to be "research-based"?
The Developer, p. 5.
Guskey, T. R. (1993, February). Why pay attention to research if researchers
can't agree? The Developer, pp. 3-4.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1991). What to consider when evaluating
staff development. Educational Leadership, 49(3), 73-76.
Hall, G. E., & Loucks, S. (1978). Teachers concerns as a basis for
facilitating and personalizing staff development. Teachers College Record,
80, 36-53.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for
meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hood, P., & Blackwell, L. (1980). The role of teachers and other
school practitioners in decision making and innovations. San Francisco: Far
West Laboratory.
Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy teachers. Knowledge: Creation,
diffusion, utilization, 4, 478-510.
Huberman, M. (1985). What knowledge is of most worth to teachers? A
knowledge-use perspective. Teaching and teacher education, 1, 251-262.
Huberman, M. (1992). Teacher development and instructional mastery. In A.
Hargreaves & M. G. Fullan (Eds.), Understand teacher development
(pp. 122-142). New York: Teachers College Press.
Huberman, M., & Crandall, D. (1983). People, Policies and practice:
Examining the chain of school improvement. Vol. 9. Implications for action: A
study of dissemination efforts supporting school improvement. Andover, MA:
The Network.
Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school
improvement works. New York: Plenum.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The
messages of research. Educational Leadership, 37(5), 379-385.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1983). Power in staff development through
research on training. Arlington, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1988). Student achievement through staff
development. New York: Longman.
Joyce, B., McNair, K. M., Diaz, R., & McKibbin, M. D. (1976).
Interviews: Perceptions of professionals and policy makers. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford
University.
Lambert, L. (1988). Staff development redesigned. Educational Leadership,
45(8), 665-668.
Latham, G. (1988). The birth and death cycles of educational innovations.
Principal, 68(1), 41-43.
Lawrence, G. (1974). Patterns of effective inservice education: A state
of the art summary of research on materials and procedures for changing teacher
behavior in inservice education. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State Department
of Education.
Leiter, M., & Cooper, M. (1978). How teacher unionists view inservice
education. Teachers College Record, 80, 107-125.
Leithwood, K. & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary school
principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52,
309-339.
Lezotte, L. W. (1989). The open book. Focus in Change, 1(2), 3.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1979). Staff development: New demands,
new realities, new perspectives. New York: Teachers College Press.
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal,
19, 325-340.
Little, J. W. (1989). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative
in teachers' professional relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Harding, C. K., Arbuckle, M. A., Murray, L. B., Dubea,
C., Williams, M. K. (1987). Continuing to learn: A guidebook for teacher
development. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement
of the Northeast & Islands.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1990). Improving the urban high school:
What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.
Mann, D. (1978). The politics of training teachers in schools. In D. Mann
(Ed.), Making change happen (pp. 3-18). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Mann, D. (1986). Authority and school improvement: An essay on "Little
King" leadership. Teachers College Record, 88(1), 41-52.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Brandt, R. S. (1990). Integrating
instructional programs through dimensions of learning. Educational
Leadership, 47(5), 17-24.
Massarella, J. A. (1980). Synthesis of research on staff development.
Educational Leadership, 38(2), 182-185.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The Rand change agent study revisited: Macro
perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19(9), 11-16.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Test-based accountability as a reform strategy.
Phi Delta Kappan, 73(3), 248-251.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school
change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 70-94.
Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). The effects of cooperative mastery learning
strategies on mathematics achievement. Journal of Educational Research,
78, 372-377.
Miles, M. B., & Louis, K. S. (1987). Research on institutionalization: A
reflective review (pp. 24-44). In M. B. Miles, M. Ekholm, & R. Vandenberghe
(Eds.), Lasting school improvement: Exploring the process of
institutionalization. Leuven, Belgium: Acco.
Miles, M. B., & Louis, K. S. (1990). Mustering the will and skill for
change. Educational Leadership, 47(8), 57-61.
Orlich, D. C. (1989). Staff development: Enhancing human potential.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Parker, C. A. (1980). The literature on planned organizational change: A
review and analysis. Higher Education, 9, 429-442.
Pejouhy, N. H. (1990). Teaching math for the 21st century. Phi Delta
Kappan, 72(1), 76-78.
Porter, A. C. (1986). From research on teaching to staff development: A
difficult step. Elementary School Journal, 87, 159-164.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search
of how people change. American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114.
Rosenholtz, S. (1987). Education reform strategies: Will they increase
teacher commitment? American Journal of Education, 95, 534-562.
Sarason, S. (1982). The culture of school and the problem of change.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on
staff development: A framework for future study and a state-of-the-art analysis.
Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77-87.
Shroyer, M. G. (1990). Effective staff development for effective
organizational development. Journal of Staff Development, 11(1), 2-6.
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development:
Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change.
American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1-30.
Sparks, D. (1994). A paradigm shift in staff development. Journal of
Staff Development, 15(4), 26-29.
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development
for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
Sparks, G. M. (1983). Synthesis of research on staff development for
effective teaching. Educational Leadership, 41(3), 65-72.
Stallings, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond
time on task. Educational Researcher, 9(11), 11-16.
Stevenson, R. B. (1987). Staff development for effective secondary schools: A
synthesis of research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3(2), 233-248.
Talbert, J. E., McLaughlin, M. W., & Rowan, B. (1993). Understanding
context effects on secondary school teaching. Teachers College Record,
95(1), 45-68.
Tye, K. A., & Tye, B. B. (1984). Teacher isolation and school reform.
Phi Delta Kappan, 65(5), 319-322.
Wade, R. K. (1984). What makes a difference in inservice teacher education? A
meta-analysis of research. Educational Leadership, 42(4), 48-54.
Waugh, R. F., & Punch, K. F. (1987). Teacher receptivity to systemwide
change in the implementation stage. Review of Educational Research,
57(3), 237-254.
Weatherley, R., & Lipsky, M. (1977). Street-level bureaucrats and
institutional innovation: Implementing special education reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 47(2), 171-197.
Weber, A. (1990). Linking ITIP and the writing process. Educational
Leadership, 47(5), 35-39.
Wise, A. E. (1991). On teacher accountability. In Voices from the field:
30 expert opinions on "America 2000," the Bush administration strategy to
"reinvent" America's schools. (pp. 23-24). Washington, D.C.: William T.
Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship and Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Wood, F. H., & Thompson, S. R. (1980). Guidelines for better staff
development. Educational Leadership, 37, 374-378.
Wood, F. H., & Thompson, S. R. (1993). Assumptions about staff
development based on research and best practice. Journal of Staff
Development, 14(4), 52-57.
Date posted: 1995
Research on Professional Development
These and other similar dichotomies in the professional development
literature leave reformers feeling confused. Many question how they can be
expected to design and implement successful professional development when even
researchers and experts in the field cannot agree on what should be done. While
the critical issues seem clear, positive solutions remain illusive. As a result,
reformers struggle desperately in their attempts to address educators' many and
highly diverse professional development needs.
The Search For An Optimal Mix
Guidelines for Success
Guideline #1: Recognize Change as Both an Individual
and Organizational Process
Guideline #2: Think Big, but Start
Small
Guideline #3: Work in Teams to Maintain
Support
Guideline #4: Include Procedures for Feedback on
Results
Guideline #5: Provide Follow-Up, Support, and
Pressure
Guideline #6: Integrate Programs
Copyright
© North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer and copyright
information.